What is regrettable in all this is that no one seems to consider the possibility that people may have nuanced views about gay marriage. According to the mob you're either a saint or a bigot, and thus Eich's value as a human being was supposedly entirely determined by this one opinion he voiced in 2008.
I'm staunchly in favor of gay marriage, which I consider to be a no-brainer -- but it seems to me the motivations of Prop 8 proponents differ a lot in nature, with some being much more excusable than others in their wrongness.
For example, there are people who have nothing against homosexuality but are attached to the symbolic value of 'marriage' as a Christian institution and would be completely fine with another civil contract with the same rights but a different name. This seems to be somewhat in line with Eich's actions (I remember reading a memo from Eich stating he had no plan to amend Mozilla's gay-friendly policies and employee benefits). Although I still think this view is guilty of being wrongly attached to outdated models of society, this is not nearly as bad as what Eich has been accused of.
There are other possible reasons one could have (for example, those who in ignorance of the many studies that showed that children of homosexual households grow up just fine could have unfounded reservations about gay adoption, but would be ready to change their mind if shown the evidence; I've encountered a couple myself), but my broader point is that there is a huge range in the degree of bigotry between those who voted Prop 8 and one should not jump to conclusions so easily as they do not all deserve the same level of condemnation.
Now, I can understand why Eich's views could make him unsuitable as a CEO because, in a purely pragmatic sense, holding views that most of your workforce despise is obviously detrimental to your ability to lead and especially so at such a peculiar organization as Mozilla where ideology matters arguably more than in other companies; it also matters because, as many have said, a CEO is the face of the company and his views and those of the company are sometimes hard to disentangle.
But going from there to making a call to boycott Firefox is a huge jump and smells like a pure appropriation of the controversy for PR purposes. This revelation about Sam Yagan seems to strengthen this feeling. Come on people, we're better than this. Being on the right side of history about an issue does not automatically waive us from intellectual rigor and moderation.
So many on the left (including myself) revere the style of politics of Nelson Mandela and yet when it comes time to actually behave like Mandela would in a given situation they completely fail, and conduct the same style of embittered, vengeful politics when they are asked to treat the other side with an attitude of forgiveness and reconciliation.
Do you think Mandela systematically purged all those whites who once supported apartheid from their positions? He did not. Why? Because forgiveness was more beneficial to the nation than recrimination.
Now that gay marriage is clearly on the march supporters, who are winning, need to treat their opposition the same way. With magnanimity and not vengefulness.
Eich is wrong about gay marriage, but he didn't deserve to be fired.
For forgiveness you need Truth and Reconciliation. There's a reason that committee was set up.
"Forgiving and being reconciled to our enemies or our loved ones are not about pretending that things are other than they are. It is not about patting one another on the back and turning a blind eye to the wrong. True reconciliation exposes the awfulness, the abuse, the hurt, the truth. It could even sometimes make things worse. It is a risky undertaking but in the end it is worthwhile, because in the end only an honest confrontation with reality can bring real healing. Superficial reconciliation can bring only superficial healing."
That's Desmond Tutu, another important figure in the struggle against apartheid.
Do you think Eich has owned up to the hurt and abuse he committed? He's not even apologized. You can't have forgiveness if the person you want to forgive isn't even willing to apologize.
Truth and Reconciliation was about truth, and not punishment. It did not demand that former supporters renounce their heresy or be punished, just that a historical accounting was made, the facts were laid down.
"I know some will be skeptical about this, and that words alone will not change anything. I can only ask for your support to have the time to “show, not tell”; and in the meantime express my sorrow at having caused pain."
I'm not sure Eich fully understands the hurt and abuse he committed, which makes owning up to it somewhat difficult. My understanding of truth and reconciliation was that the process was intended to educate those responsible for apartheid just how truly awful it was, not just demand an apology. Thousands of people demanding for resignation over the Internet seems more likely to reinforce his current views than help him truly understand.
You make an important point, but I want to add a caveat. We know a lot about how long we have to wait to deal with "regime crimes" in order not to jeopardize the political system of the successor state.
It seems that in the case of maximum scale crimes, the right number is somewhere around 30 years (one generation). That was approximately the time between the end of WW2 and the 1968 student revolts in Germany, and the Bonn republic survived it. As another example, given the divisive nature of the incredibly bloody Spanish civil war, societal "digestion" of the Franco dictatorship also had to wait for almost 30 years.
What happens if winners rapidly turn on the former suppressors can currently be observed in Egypt.
So far, so interesting, but what it doesn't tell us, is what the time scale for a (comparatively small) intrasocietal adjustment of morality is (gay marriage = sin -> gay marriage = fundamental right).
One decade? Five years? Fifteen? I can't think of any precedents that can truly be compared to the gay marriage situation.
My personal feeling is that the reaction to Eich was not appropriate considering where he stands on the currently applicable bigotry scale.
But that is also just a gut feeling. The question remains: What is the right time to wait before a step of progressive change in society should be "enforced", so that the backlash remains minimal?
So - what you are saying is that you support radical, armed struggle in support of marriage equality? Just as Mandela supported radical, armed struggle against apartheid?
Yes, before he went to prison Mandela was engaged in armed revolution.. But after he got out of prison he did everything he could do to avoid bloodshed and war, even if it meant negotiating with those who had imprisoned him for 27 years.
> For example, there are people who have nothing against homosexuality but are attached to the symbolic value of 'marriage' as a Christian institution
Yes, they were also attached to its symbolic value when they used it to condemn miscegenation.
Given atheist, muslims, jews or hindus can get married, and so can blacks, browns, reds, yellows and whites (with one another too, which once upon a time was against "the symbolic value of 'marriage' as a Christian institution"), I'm pretty sure civil marriage has nothing to do with "the symbolic value of 'marriage' as a Christian institution".
> and would be completely fine with another civil contract with the same rights but a different name.
Because "separate but equal" had such a good run last time around eh?
> This seems to be somewhat in line with Eich's actions
No it is not:
1. Eich donated $1000 to prop 8. Prop 8's goal was to prevent future homosexual marriages in california and to break up existing ones (since prop 8 was passed specifically because proposition 22 had been struck down and homosexual couples were getting married). It did not propose the introduction of an equivalent contract or amend californian law to effectively introduce one
2. Eich refused to acknowledge such an intent and stonewalled instead behind "me giving to people trying to destroy your marriage does not mean I'm a bigot". Does not sound like "separate but equal" was his intent, as distateful as that would have been
3. "I would prefer an alternative to it therefore I donate to amend the constitution in order to ban it" is not what I would call sane and sensible reasoning
I think you're misreading the above post. The point is not to say there is a justifiable argument against gay marriage but to say that not all opponents are like Fred Phelps -- i.e., not all opponents are motivated by pure animus as opposed to ignorance, FUD, or just faulty reasoning.
A big part of that ignorance is many (if not most) gay marriage opponents simply don't believe it's an immutable characteristic and don't fully appreciate how damaging it can be to suppress one's sexual orientation (e.g. don't ask, don't tell). And if you don't believe that sexual orientation is an immutable characteristic, then a gay marriage ban isn't discrimination against a minority but simply yet another public morality law in line with bans on drugs, polygamy, or public nudity.
That doesn't make the argument any less wrong, but IMHO, intent matters. Ignorance or stupidity don't deserve the same level of condemnation as outright hate.
It has nothing to do both "separate but equal" if the only difference is the legal term used ("marriage" for heterosexual couple, "civil union" for homosexual couple) and not the rights associated with it.
Separate but equal was about physical segregation of minorities, not just about using different legal terms for the same thing. And, by the way, something that a ton of people don't know about the separate but equal doctrine (because it doesn't appear to be taught in American public schools): It actually refers to the government's legal authority to mandate that privately owned businesses provide separate nut equal facilities for blacks. That's a lot different than the usual portrayal of Brown vs. BoE, as the government stepping in an conquering private racism.
> It has nothing to do both "separate but equal" if the only difference is the legal term used ("marriage" for heterosexual couple, "civil union" for homosexual couple) and not the rights associated with it.
It's the exact same theory: "different legal regimes but the same rights" and "different physical facilities but the same quality".
"Legal regime" sounds fancy, but if it's just a word difference I wouldn't see much of a problem. Similarly, we have word differences like "brother"/"sister" that are descriptive but which don't involve any difference in rights.
if the only difference is the legal term used ("marriage" for heterosexual couple, "civil union" for homosexual couple) and not the rights associated with it.
Which was not, is not and has never been the case in any of the gay marriage cases across the country.
I'm not disputing that. I'm not an expert in California marriage law. I'm just saying that if the only difference is the legal term, and there were no difference in legal rights, then the situation is not as simple as "bigotry" vs. "equal rights."
It's worth pointing out here that having it be a unified institution means the way it works in the one case and the other case are tied together (unless you introduce an explicit distinction). Having them under two separate umbrellas potentially allows them to drift apart or (more easily compared to the one-umbrella case) simply be changed to be different at a later date.
Your understanding of civil rights and Jim Crow is so wrong it's just astounding. I suggest you start with reading the wikipedia article on Brown v. Board of Education and Jim Crow laws.
Can you give me something more specific? Are you referring to the fact that Brown vs. BoE applied specifically to public schools rather than private businesses? That's true, but the separate but equal doctrine allowed states to prohibit private businesses from having integrated facilities regardless of whether the business owners were racist.
Are you implying there were a bunch of southern business owners who wanted to provide integrated service, but were unable to because of Jim Crow? That's what it sounds like, and it's so wrong it's astounding.
I'm well aware of Jim Crow laws. They mandated the racial segregation of public facilities, the military, restrooms, etc. What is the mistake you think I'm making about Jim Crow laws?
Surely there must have been at least a few business owners that didn't want to spend their resources on separate facilities. Otherwise the state laws which forced segregation wouldn't have been necessary.
What mistake do I think you are making? You said: "It actually refers to the government's legal authority to mandate that privately owned businesses provide separate nut equal facilities for blacks". No law ever forced private businesses to serve blacks in the south until the civil rights act. They may have been forced to racially segregate, but no law every forced white southern business owners to serve blacks.
> I'm pretty sure civil marriage has nothing to do with "the symbolic value of 'marriage' as a Christian institution".
The difference is that you are more rational and clear thinking individual than many many others. Trying to apply your logic to their "logic" will just result in frustration.
The Cognitive Therapy approach to argument ("Well let me show you how your argument is internally inconsistent") doesn't often work in such case.
So what does that mean in this case. It means that they can have a deep belief that civil marriage is tied to the Christian idea and still accept that atheists and Hindus also take part in it. There is vague religious mythology associated with the Founding Fathers, Constitution and the idea of exclusivity of this country. We are shocked how some Islamic country go full on and just base their legal framework on Islamic rules, but there are swathes of Americans would love nothing more that see that happen here but with Christian ideology.
They have been also losing ground (abortion etc), saw a resurgence with election of Bush junior (a large Evangelical backing) and now they are losing ground again and are being backed into a corner. Instead of seeing the crazy irrationality of their action they lash out and create Prop 8 like campaigns. Tea parties and so on.
> Do you take the same hardline stance with others who were opposed to gay marriage a few years ago and advocating civil unions?
I'm fine with civil unions existing (they're useful, for both same-sex and different-sex couples) and I'm fine with civil unions being a stepstone.
But civil unions is not marriage anywhere, least of all legally and across country lines.
So the issue is murkier, on the one hand once civil unions are in and civilisation hasn't ended it's easier to drive for marriage equality and the "opponents" to gay marriage can be used to get civil unions (that worked fairly well in most of western europe); on the other hand it means years or decades waiting as a sub-standard citizen (not all of western europe has marriage equality yet), it depletes the store of outrage/combativity for equality proponents it's not necessary[1] and I'm not sure it makes the overall process shorter: there seems to be a ~>10 years lag between partnerships and marriage equality.
[0] Denmark, Norway, Sweden and Iceland added same-sex partnerships in the early 90s and superseded them with gender-neutral marriage in the last 5 years; France added civil unions (for both homosexual and heterosexual couples) in 1998 and extended marriage to same-sex couples in 2013; Finland enacted registered partnerships in 2002 and support full same-sex marriage has been falling ever since — from 45% back then to 65% now; Great Britain added civil partnerships in 2004 and further added full same-sex marriage in 2014.
[1] the netherlands skipped civil unions and just went straight for marriage equality in 2001
Eich was not 'stonewalling', he was following the guidelines that all Mozilla employees adhere to, which include not bringing personal views into the workplace. Stating his PoV on gay marriage (pro OR con) as a representative of Mozilla would have been wholly inappropriate. The thing you say would have proven his virtue would have in fact made him unsuitable to hold his position.
This is really not the point at all; we're way way past the debate pro- or against- gay marriage. (Disclaimer: like probably 99% of people on HN, I'm strongly in favor of gay marriage).
The point(s) are:
- is it acceptable to hunt a man down and force him to step down from a job he's highly qualified for, because he has held in the past political opinions that not only differ from your own, but were then mainstream and are now considered "incorrect"?
- is it acceptable for a corporation such as OkCupid to ruin a man's (otherwise impeccable) professional life for a little PR stunt?
- how can the CEO of OkCupid justify this little stunt when he himself made a donation to a politician who's an actual, self-professed, public bigot??
Brendan Eich's professional life was impeccable. he had a stellar resume, and was CTO of a successful company. he could've gone anywhere from there. Now, he's thought of in SV as a bigot, despite all his efforts to reverse that opinion. His impeccable professional reputation is ruined. I see no lowering of the bar when staing this fact. Perhaps you could explain why saying he was ruined professionally is false?
After looking through your comment history, you seem to be posting the same downplaying arguments throughout the thread. And when you're disagreed with, the replies to you are downvoted. very interesting. perhaps you could explain that as well?
> Now, he's thought of in SV as a bigot, despite all his efforts to reverse that opinion.
He's expressed his bigotry, he's in fact made political maneuverings to enact his bigotry. He's done nothing to apologize or rescind his bigot actions. People are judging him off his actions and lack of words, the best criteria.
> Perhaps you could explain why saying he was ruined professionally is false?
How about the dozen or so huge honchos who have so far made statements about standing with him? They clearly don't care about his actions and as you can see on this website a majority find valor in him making donations like he did, so no I don't see his professional life ruined (sadly) by his actions.
There's also a karma threashhold for downvoting. You actually need a sockpuppet account with a decent chunk of karma and there are voting ring detectors to put a stop to most shenanigans.
> is it acceptable to hunt a man down and force him to step down from a job he's highly qualified for
No one forced Eich to do anything. His choice to step down was as free as his choice to donate to Prop. 8.
Plus, I'm not sure there's much evidence that Eich was "highly qualified" for the CEO job -- he was clearly highly qualified for his previous job as CTO, but his appointment was controversial within the Mozilla board even before the Prop. 8 controversy.
> is it acceptable for a corporation such as OkCupid to ruin a man's (otherwise impeccable) professional life for a little PR stunt?
OkCupid didn't ruin Eich's "(otherwise impeccable) professional life". OkCupid was fairly late in piling on -- insofar as the Prop. 8 controversy damaged Eich, much of that damage had already been done by the time OkCupid acted.
Minor point: you speak of Prop 8 opponents, but you're talking about Prop 8 proponents. Remember they were explicitly trying to roll back rights permanently, in the California Constitution, not trying to stop a new law from passing.
Anyhow, something to consider: there were onced nuanced segregationists--there's a funny clip where Jimmy Carter's ex chief of staff said he went from being an extreme segregationist, to a moderate segregationist, to a moderate integrationist.
That viewpoint seems insane now, because with the benefit of hindsight we can't conceive of how an extreme viewpoint can be viewed as moderate if you're living within it. But thems the breaks. If someone's a bigot, they're a bigot, no matter how complicated an ideological edifice they've erected to prove they're not a bigot.
I agree with pretty much everything you said, but I take issue with judging Mr Eich unsuitable. I think as outsiders we are simply unable to reasonably evaluate his fitness as CEO of their organization. Employees and their managers have differences of thought all the time, but that doesn't preclude a mutual respect for each other's work.
From what I understand the employees of Mozilla for the most part had glowing reviews of his work, and ultimately that (and I guess the general performance of the company) should be the true judge of his suitability to the job.
It is despicable to wish to deny equal treatment under the law to any group. But even if in a person's private life they harbor such wishes, it is not the place of the general public to judge the company they work for.
You will rue the day that a person's ability to lead is judged by how well ago their views align with those they lead. Especially on matters only on the fringe of the primary goal of the workplace and especially in instances whee the workplace actions are aligned. Shared vision is different than group think and mob rule.
What is regrettable in all this is that no one seems to consider the possibility that people may have nuanced views about gay marriage.
The norm portrayed on television and in so much of the media is that nuanced views are just a cover for being a "bad guy." In a story, black and white morality is so much more palatable for the least common denominator audience. News media now also follows this pattern, as do political commercials. However, reality is actually pretty complicated, and informed opinions are often nuanced by necessity.
There are other possible reasons one could have (for example, those who in ignorance of the many studies that showed that children of homosexual households grow up just fine could have unfounded reservations about gay adoption, but would be ready to change their mind if shown the evidence
A college housemate of mine was dead-set homophobic when she first moved in. However, she eventually became the best friends of a gay man who lived with us. Understanding in a pluralistic society comes from the everyday interaction of normal, decent people. This is how prejudices are debunked and the wounds of societal injustice are healed. The actions of OkCupid are vindictive and only unproductive in this regard.
I thought HN as a whole was smart enough to not fall for these black and white moral plays. Either they are that gullible overall, or there's some serious astroturfing going on here.
Problem is a Marriage license is not defined by a religion in power as a government.
Marriage license should be religion netrual when you get down to it..all should be allowed to marry as many people at once as they want irregardless of creed, sexual orientation, gender, etc.
The reaction to Eich is best seen through a lens of human group power dynamics, as it isn't logically consistent with some supposed ideals (civil discourse, etc.). Geeks have a harder time understanding this social acceptability aspect, especially within a given group or tribe. For this particular political question, a "no gay marriage" opinion has passed into the socially unacceptable in the Bay Area tech crowd.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong to react or ostracize like this, it's just the way crowds of people tend to work. And when tides shift in one direction, a desire by the winning side to celebrate, express power, and pick on the losing happens.
In 2008 it may have been a serious political question in California and the United States as a whole - and we totally can judge based on popular opinion - the difference is supporters narrow the judgment of social acceptability to Eich's narrower group of Bay Area techies. That's why saying it's "obviously wrong" or "there are no rational arguments" is a cop out - and the same denying civil rights argument can be applied to say abortion (denying women's right to choose! Murdering unborn infants!) or opposing affirmative action (racist against minorities! discrimination!).
The main difference? Public opinion rapidly moved against Prop 8 whereas for gun control or abortion it has been far more steady. [Even though over 20% of San Franciscans voted for Prop 8, the number among the educated tech crowd was likely far lower, and same among California as a whole]. Meanwhile, a movement like neo-Nazism is more universally reviled and not socially acceptable in 2014 US, although it may have been mainstream in 1938 Germany, and speaking out against it would leave you ostracized. This is where the "right side of history" aspect becomes interesting. Everything happens within the context of your time and your tribe, and this morality breaks down after these context changes.
Because the opinion on gay marriage is so universal within the tech crowd of the Bay Area, Eich doesn't really have a way out in this. (Look at the contribution numbers for employees of Google, Facebook, etc.) Meanwhile minority opinions on gun control, abortion, etc. are still socially acceptable but will still trigger suspicion. Ditto on economic issues and the entire anti-libertarian techie backlash, even though libertarianism continues to be weaker than liberalism. For another industry and group, look at Whole Foods' CEO writing an anti-Obamacare Op ed which triggered a backlash - the difference is that Eich said nothin, and most definitely continued to adopt gay-friendly policies at his workplace.
In medieval Europe, the adherence to your group (or broader society) was enforced through excommunication, in communist Russia, through purging and re-education camps, in Hollywood during the Red Scare, via McCarthyism and impossibility of finding a job. In Silicon Valley, is it by Internet campaigns and removal from high-ranking positions? What supposed Eich defenders are saying is - let's try not to be like that, no matter how righteous we believe our opinions to be.
Which is not really correct though. Eich said he was sorry for the harm he caused, by not for the thoughts he had. He could have said "back then I thought one way about the matter, and even supported causes in that way, since then I've been educated that this is harmful and regret how I thought back then. My views have evolved and for anybody who was harmed by my thoughts and actions back then, I'm very sorry and will do my best to make amends."
We all make mistakes, and our thinking changes over the years. Eich is no different. He's as forgivable as we are. But forgiveness requires repentance, which he hasn't done. The current theory about why is that he still holds the same thoughts.
>2008 it may have been a serious political question in California and the United States as a whole
Mozilla operates in a much larger space though.
Holland says hi!
>That's why saying it's "obviously wrong" or "there are no rational arguments" is a cop out - and the same denying civil rights argument can be applied to say abortion (denying women's right to choose! Murdering unborn infants!) or opposing affirmative action
Here's a rational argument why anti-gay people are at war with humanity, and why it is different from your examples:
- abortion concerns the interests of three parties: the mother, the father and the unborn child. The point of society is to streamline and govern the situation when individual interests overlap.
- human rights, the notion that any human being is equal, irregardless of their race, hair color or gender, implies no law should be passed mentioning gender. Hence any anti-gay bill, which can not be defined without mentioning gender, is a political action directly opposing human rights.
- in the constition of my country (Holland) as well as yours, equality of all individuals is considered to overrule majority opinion. This is also established in international law: Violators of human rights commit "crimes against humanity". This is all irregardless of majority opinion of some region.
I keep hearing the word civil debate and opinion. Financing human rights violations is not "having an opinion". It's active treason against humanity. It's partaking in a global civil war, that has been going on for centuries, and is often fought with bombs, guns, sanctions and boycots.
Remember when ..
- the people in the US went to war with each other over equality? (the Civil War)
- the US went to war against the Nazi's over equality? (As a dutch citizen i'm very happy they did)
- we all boycotted a whole nation because of equality? (South-Africa)
- your founding fathers put equality in your constitution, as it being more important than democracy itself?
- most nations in the world got together and established the notion of "human rights" as a notion stronger than the right of nations to self-govern?
Fortunately, democracy often seems to allow for a way to fight this war, without killing, but human rights are not up for civil debate or election. When majorities, dictators, elites or whoever try to violate human rights the common response is "over my dead body". Not "lets agree to disagree". We might often prefer civil debate over full-out-war, but that's out of practicality, not morality.
So, that's why all this cultural relativism is falling on deaf ears: One can not be a neutral observer, when it comes to human rights.
There are some good points in here that make us question what human rights are and how we treat them.
All human rights are up to majority vote or dictatorship decree at some point. (Who created the UN, or whatever international body you want to use? Who elected the officials who appointed the courts?) And if human rights are truly universal, who gets to decide? Is it you? Or me? Is it Holland? Or the US? China? Iran?
By your definition, the right to own firearms is also a human right as defined by the US constitution. Similarly, in the United States there is a human right to free speech (including offensive speech such as Holocaust denial), but in Germany this is illegal. Would this be a human rights violation by Germany?
Similarly, one can say pro-choice people are at war with humanity, by denying the human right of the unborn child to life (the right to life is in all constititions) - stripping that right via an abortion is essentially murder. How do we reconcile these differences in moral systems?
One can say Muslim nations operate in a much "larger" space as it comes to rights. Hello sharia law!
Maybe some differences are worth going to war over, to settle the score. Is the right to vote or the right to free speech also in this category? Some agree, and have invaded countries on this basis and attempted to set up a democracy. Others disagree, and only apply sanctions. Or less. Usually, countries are not as idealistic, and require their own group to be threatened militarily for this to happen. See the US not partaking in WW2 until attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor. Or the US invading Iraq to gain advantages of oil and Middle Eastern control. And ignoring human rights violations by Saudi Arabia because it's politically expedient.
If no bill can be passed without mentioning gender, we should remove the US "Violence Against Women" act as being anti-male as well.
Basically the idealistic black and white moral analysis, while noble, fails to explain what happens in the world.
>By your definition, the right to own firearms is also a human right as defined by the US constitution. Similarly, in the United States there is a human right to free speech
Yes. At the very least, those are rights, that supercede your democracy. Those rights are not 'majority preference decides'. Those rights were decided by 'who is more stubborn and willing to fight an eternal war and not give anybody peace until they get their freedom'.
>Who created the UN, or whatever international body you want to use? Who elected the officials who appointed the courts?
This is not meant to be cynical though; in practice this turns out much nicer than you would expect. It's not a biggest bully on the block kind of anarchy.
Why? Because people who just have a 'prefence' are not part of the calculation. The armchair opinion of civil debate, the talk radio, whatever. It does not matter. If they are not willing to fight/kill/die to get their way, they are not part of the negotiation. And they shouldn't be, because obviously they don't care enough. They are not invested enough. The deaf kid doesn't get to pick the music.
>Basically the idealistic black and white moral analysis, while noble, fails to explain what happens in the world.
Yes. The notion we can settle these core principles with civil debate is ridiculus. Rights are not the result of debate. They are the result of negotiation. We're all actively counting guns, bombs and bullets.
The world may debate about health-care, taxation or pot. Because whatever our position is, we consider it less important than our rights and democracies. Yet there are values we will die for. Values outside of the realm of debate.
In that light, witch hunting whatever forces are actively violating or trying to violate those rights, can be both logical and moral. It's war. The harder the pro-equality people come down, the more likely the anti-equality people are to give up, accept and surrender.
>If no bill can be passed without mentioning gender, we should remove the US "Violence Against Women" act as being anti-male as well.
I'm not aware of any nation without any law referring to gender. But i also never ever heard anybody make a rational case, that the gender of a person is anybody's bussiness. If anything, it's a reminder just how sexist we all are. So many laws referring to genitalia, yet none refer to our eye or hair color.
Here's one for the lurking spin doctors. "Stop being perverts. End genetalia-based laws now!"
I'm staunchly in favor of gay marriage, which I consider to be a no-brainer -- but it seems to me the motivations of Prop 8 proponents differ a lot in nature, with some being much more excusable than others in their wrongness.
For example, there are people who have nothing against homosexuality but are attached to the symbolic value of 'marriage' as a Christian institution and would be completely fine with another civil contract with the same rights but a different name. This seems to be somewhat in line with Eich's actions (I remember reading a memo from Eich stating he had no plan to amend Mozilla's gay-friendly policies and employee benefits). Although I still think this view is guilty of being wrongly attached to outdated models of society, this is not nearly as bad as what Eich has been accused of.
There are other possible reasons one could have (for example, those who in ignorance of the many studies that showed that children of homosexual households grow up just fine could have unfounded reservations about gay adoption, but would be ready to change their mind if shown the evidence; I've encountered a couple myself), but my broader point is that there is a huge range in the degree of bigotry between those who voted Prop 8 and one should not jump to conclusions so easily as they do not all deserve the same level of condemnation.
Now, I can understand why Eich's views could make him unsuitable as a CEO because, in a purely pragmatic sense, holding views that most of your workforce despise is obviously detrimental to your ability to lead and especially so at such a peculiar organization as Mozilla where ideology matters arguably more than in other companies; it also matters because, as many have said, a CEO is the face of the company and his views and those of the company are sometimes hard to disentangle.
But going from there to making a call to boycott Firefox is a huge jump and smells like a pure appropriation of the controversy for PR purposes. This revelation about Sam Yagan seems to strengthen this feeling. Come on people, we're better than this. Being on the right side of history about an issue does not automatically waive us from intellectual rigor and moderation.